Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Mon Nov 21 04:56:10 UTC 2022

On 11/20/22 19:02, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:

> Dear Mark:
>
> 0)  I am surprised at your apparently sarcastic opinion.
>
> 1)  The EzIP proposal as referenced by my last MSG is the result of an 
> in-depth system engineering effort. Since the resultant schemes do not 
> rely on any protocol development, IETF does not need be involved. 
> Especially, its first step of disabling one line of existing 
> networking program code empowers any party to begin deploying EzIP 
> stealthily for mitigating the IPv4 address pool depletion issues. Note 
> that EzIP is a generic solution applicable to everyone, not limited to 
> Africa.
>
> 2)  Of course, constructive criticism is always appreciated. However, 
> unspecific comments that confuse and distract the readers only provide 
> dis-service to those disadvantaged population who are enduring the 
> handicaps of being the late-comers to the Internet.

My comment was not directed at you. Sorry.

I have nothing against the EzIP proposal. It just does not add any real 
value in solving the IPv4 depletion problem for the amount of effort 
required to implement it, in my view. I'd, rather, expend those 
resources on IPv6, 464XLAT, e.t.c.

Mark.